{rfName}
Th

Indexed in

License and use

Icono OpenAccess

Citations

98

Altmetrics

Grant support

Andre Ricarte Medeiros (UC17351170) received a PROSUP scholarship grant from CAPES. Daniel A. Boullosa received a productivity grant from CNPq (305131/2015-0). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Analysis of institutional authors

Jimenez-Reyes, PAuthor

Share

Publications
>
Article

The validity and reliability of the My Jump App for measuring jump height of the elderly

Publicated to:Peerj. 6 (e5804): e5804- - 2018-10-15 6(e5804), DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5804

Authors: Cruvinel-Cabral, Rejane Maria; Oliveira-Silva, Iranse; Medeiros, Andre Ricarte; Claudino, Joao Gustavo; Jimenez-Reyes, Pedro; Boullosa, Daniel A

Affiliations

Abstract

Background: The ability to jump has been related to muscle strength and power, speed and amplitude of the lower limbs movements, and specifically for the elderly, the vertical jump has been shown to be a good predictor of functional capacity and risk of falling. The use of a mobile application (App) which can measure the vertical jump (i. e., iPhone App My Jump) has recently emerged as a simple, cheap and very practical tool for evaluation of jump ability. However, the validity of this tool for the elderly population has not been tested yet. The elderly usually perform very low jumps and therefore the signal-to-noise ratio may compromise the validity and reliability of this method. Thus, the aim of the current study was to verify the validity and reliability of the iPhone App My Jump for the evaluation of countermovement jump (CMJ) height within an elderly population. Methods: After familiarization, 41 participants performed three CMJs assessed via a contact mat and the My Jump App. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to verify the relative reliability, while the coefficient of variation (CV%) and the typical error of measurement (TEM) were used to verify the absolute reliability. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to verify the strength of the relationship between methods (i. e., concurrent validity), a Bland-Altman plot to show their agreement, and the Student's t-test to identify systematic bias between them. For reliability analyses, all jumps were considered (i. e., 123). All jumps (i. e., 123), the average height of each attempt (i. e., 41), and the highest jump, were considered for validity analyses. Results: The CMJ height of the highest jump was 10.78 +/- 5.23 cm with contact mat, and 10.87 +/- 5.32 with My Jump App, with an identified systematic bias of 0.096 cm (P = 0.007). There was a nearly perfect correlation between methods (r = 0.999; P = 0.000, in all cases) with a very good agreement observed (0.3255 to -0.5177 cm, 0.2797 to -0.5594 cm, and 0.3466 to -0.6264 cm, for highest jump height, average jump height, and all jump heights, respectively). The ICC of the My Jump App was 0.948, the TEM was 1.150 cm, and the CV was 10.10%. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the My Jump App is a valid and reliable tool compared to the contact mat for evaluating vertical jump performance in the elderly. Therefore, it allows a simple and practical assessment of lower limbs' power in this population. For the elderly, as well as for other populations with low jumping heights, the highest jump height and the average jump height could be used indistinctly.

Keywords

AccuracyAgedArticleCapacityClinical articleConcurrent validityContact matControlled studyCorrelation coefficientCountermovement jumpExplosivenessFemaleFlight timeFunctional capacityFunctional statusHeightHumanHuman experimentIntermethod comparisonJumpingLower limbMaleMuscle strengthOlderPerformancePhysical capacityPowerReliabilitySeniorsSignal noise ratioStatistical biasStudentVertical-jumpWomen

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal Peerj due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency Scopus (SJR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2018, it was in position , thus managing to position itself as a Q1 (Primer Cuartil), in the category Agricultural and Biological Sciences (Miscellaneous).

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from World Citations provided by WoS (ESI, Clarivate), it yields a value for the citation normalization relative to the expected citation rate of: 1.55. This indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: ESI Nov 14, 2024)

This information is reinforced by other indicators of the same type, which, although dynamic over time and dependent on the set of average global citations at the time of their calculation, consistently position the work at some point among the top 50% most cited in its field:

  • Weighted Average of Normalized Impact by the Scopus agency: 3.38 (source consulted: FECYT Feb 2024)
  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR) from Dimensions: 18.19 (source consulted: Dimensions Jun 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-06-06, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 45
  • Scopus: 53
  • OpenCitations: 43

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-06-06:

  • The use, from an academic perspective evidenced by the Altmetric agency indicator referring to aggregations made by the personal bibliographic manager Mendeley, gives us a total of: 285.
  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 284 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

  • The Total Score from Altmetric: 3.5.
  • The number of mentions on the social network X (formerly Twitter): 6 (Altmetric).

It is essential to present evidence supporting full alignment with institutional principles and guidelines on Open Science and the Conservation and Dissemination of Intellectual Heritage. A clear example of this is:

  • The work has been submitted to a journal whose editorial policy allows open Open Access publication.

Leadership analysis of institutional authors

This work has been carried out with international collaboration, specifically with researchers from: Brazil.